From skills-for-humanity
Maps actual incentives driving behavior, distinguishing stated motivations from real reward structures. Useful for explaining and changing seemingly irrational actions in organizations or systems.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:s4h-social-incentive-analysisThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Most behaviour that looks irrational is perfectly rational given the actual incentives. The problem is that systems are designed around intended incentives while people respond to actual ones. Finding the gap between the two explains what is happening and points to what would change it.
Most behaviour that looks irrational is perfectly rational given the actual incentives. The problem is that systems are designed around intended incentives while people respond to actual ones. Finding the gap between the two explains what is happening and points to what would change it.
Step 1: Describe the Behaviour Name the specific behaviour to explain or change. Be concrete — not "people aren't engaged" but "engineers don't attend architecture reviews and don't comment on RFCs."
Framing check: Confirm the specific behaviour and its context before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual behaviour being analysed, who is exhibiting it, and the system or setting it occurs in — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
Step 2: Map What the System Actually Rewards Not what it is supposed to reward — what actually gets people promoted, praised, defended, or protected? Look at recent promotions, public praise, and what leadership visibly prioritises.
Step 3: Map What the System Actually Punishes What leads to criticism, risk, political cost, or reduced standing? What do people avoid doing, even when they believe it is the right thing?
Step 4: Rationality Check Given the actual rewards and punishments identified in Steps 2–3: is the observed behaviour rational? In most cases it is. If it is rational, that is important — it means you cannot change the behaviour without changing the incentives.
Step 5: Identify the Incentive-Behaviour Gap Where do the intended incentives (what the system claims to reward) diverge from the actual incentives (what it truly rewards)? This gap is where dysfunction lives.
Step 6: Recommend Incentive Changes For each problematic behaviour: what specific incentive change would most directly address it? Focus on what the system rewards and punishes, not on asking for attitude changes.
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
[Concrete description]
Is the behaviour rational given these incentives? Yes / No / Partially. Explanation: Why the behaviour makes sense (or doesn't) given the actual incentive structure.
| Intended Incentive | Actual Incentive | Gap |
|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... |
| Problematic Behaviour | Incentive Change That Would Address It |
|---|---|
| ... | ... |
Incentive analysis is most powerful when it reveals that a problem is not one of attitude or effort but of structure. Change the structure — not the people.
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/s4h-social-coalition-mapping — Align coalition building around the shared incentives/s4h-game-theory-mechanism-design — Design mechanisms to shift incentive structures/s4h-communication-audience-modeling — Model how incentives shape audience behaviournpx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanityMaps incentives in systems: who benefits, who pays, and what behaviors the structure produces. Useful when behavior diverges from stated intent or when analyzing why policies fail.
Audits governance and organizational processes to replace virtue-reliance with incentive structures that make good behavior the rational self-interested choice.
Diagnoses why users fail to complete actions using Fogg's B=MAP model, analyzing motivation, ability, and prompt factors to identify bottlenecks and recommend interventions. Useful for post-launch user inaction analysis.